So, the “multi-talented” P.N. Elrod’s royalty income doesn’t meet her life expenses. Begging from authors; not cool. You can read all about it here. Think about it . . . if she was really so damn “multi-talented,” she wouldn’t have to beg you for money. This whole saga is reminiscent of stupid people that should not procreate. Likewise, some stupid people should not own pets especally if you cannot afford to care for them in the first place; to wit:

Ongoing medical concerns due to old age.

A sudden onset of canine vestibular disorder shot the vet bills up into 4-figure territory last spring.

Elrod did crowd funding to pay that down, but did not raise the full amount.

P. N. Elrod has 2 mortgages

Fuzzy, “the dog,” had to have eye surgery in August.

She, Fuzzy the dog, had mineralizing keratopathy — holes in her corneas — and needed a conjunctival free graft to cover them. It was that or both her eyeballs would rupture–that was the word the vet used, rupture–and she would be in extreme pain and lose both eyes.

But the vet bill tripled. P.N. Elrod claims that it’s more than she gets for an advance on a book.

P.N. Elrod cannot afford this medical care for her beloved pet . . . and that’s where you come in author. We’re sure you have your own “critique” of Elrod’s pathetic venture; let her know how you feel.

It seems that it would be the better part of wisdom to either put Fuzzy to sleep or give it to someone that CAN pay the medical bills. Begging authors for money for your dog is just as pathetic as begging authors to defend a lawsuit against you!

It’s so damn ironic that people like Spangenberg & Elrod will complain about scams perpetrated against authors. Yet, they think that it’s OK to beg authors for money to care for a damn dog. Read on . . . this isn’t their first SCAM,

Seems like the Screenplay by Roy C. Booth and Rachael Saltzman still isn’t going anywhere. No contact with Facebook users since January 2013. In addition, there has been numerous (failed) attempts to fund this project. We’re still amazed that James Macdonald, Victoria Strauss & Ann “A.C.” Crispin have not stepped up to fund this project. Since they’ve promoted it heavily, is it just the fact that their book royalties are so low that they cannot afford it? No Blockbusters here.

The book and the story behind it were optioned for a film in February 2011 by producing team Roy C. Booth and Rachael Saltzman, who were also slated to co-write and co-direct the film. The options money has gone to the SFWA Emergency Medical Fund. Production was tentatively scheduled to begin August 2011, but on 16 May 2011 the crowd funding campaign ended without reaching its goal.

Part III: John Scalzi Was No Moses – Evaluation of Leadership & the Potential to Lead

“Philosophically, I’m opposed to having only one candidate for a leadership position of any organization I am involved with. I don’t think it speaks well for the organizational health of the body; it suggests an apathetic membership. One can debate whether the membership is apathetic because the organization is not useful enough to be engaged in, or whether the membership is simply apathetic in a general sense (or both). Whatever the cause, it’s not an encouraging sign.” [Emphasis added]

– John Scalzi

John Scalzi, in prior SFWA elections, ran for office unopposed. Has his opinion changed since 2007? Or, is this flip-flopping and waffling? Let’s evaluate Scalzi’s term in office and use some questions as the criteria (or balancing test) to evaluate the fitness of the 2013 candidates (i.e. Theodore Beale & Steven Gould). If you are a SFWA member, you should consider these prior to casting your vote.

In reviewing Scalzi’s departure sermon, do we really need to be made aware of his “personal” triumphs while he held office? It’s really no big secret that Scalzi (who wrote several books while in office), Victoria Strauss and Ann “A.C.” Crispin have used their positions with the SFWA to expand their marketing activities. True Leadership involves self-sacrifice . . . not self-promotion.

“ . . . [I]f I am elected president, you should know now that I will view the position as something I am doing in addition to my writing career, not something of equal importance. I might as well be honest with you on that score.” [Emphasis added]

– John Scalzi

A true leader identifies completely with his/her people (membership), their purpose and is willing to give up everything for them. Did Scalzi epitomize this kind of leadership? How much did he give of himself? That is, did he devote himself to undertaking the duties and fulfilling his responsibilities relative to strengthening the SFWA membership? How much did he sacrifice? Did he sacrifice everything or was his own self-interest and self-promotion a version of his own “Golden Calf”? How encompassing was his commitment to the SFWA and its membership? Did his commitment extend to every member of the SFWA . . . or, was it handed out arbitrarily or selectively? What steps were taken, during his term in office, to ensure the timely filing of compliance documents with state and federal officials?

“I’ve never expected SFWA to do anything for me because I require nothing from it. However, I have the luxury of regarding my membership as an affectation; other members of SFWA might actually want it to do something useful for them. I happen to think SFWA can be useful; I happen to think it doesn’t do a particularly good job of being useful.”

– John Scalzi

Conversely, to what degree were all members of the SFWA able to connect with Scalzi? Was he accessible? How much influence did he weld? How effective has his leadership been? Are there still SFWA members that are in exile? As a “shepherd” did he sustain the external faith (i.e. non-members) in the organization . . . thereby causing individuals to actually want to join the organization? Did he nurture faith (or doubt) with the members of the organization? Did the membership grow or deplete during his term in office? (Note: Beale and Gould have both raised concerns about “membership” in their platforms.) Did he take steps to effectuate a positive culture within the SFWA?

I’ve never expected SFWA to do anything for me because I require nothing from it. However, I have the luxury of regarding my membership as an affectation; other members of SFWA might actually want it to do something useful for them. I happen to think SFWA can be useful; I happen to think it doesn’t do a particularly good job of being useful

– John Scalzi

During Scalzi’s term in office, based on the answers to these questions, what standards, if any, did he set for future Presidents of the SFWA? Would either of the two candidates want to emulate any of his leadership qualities . . . or merely view it as an “affection”? A true leader is able to extend his commitment to everyone . . . even those that rise direct in opposition to his own values, beliefs and concerns. Your own answers to these questions should help you evaluate both of the 2013 candidates. In addition, we hope that the candidates internalize these criteria and update their platforms to address the SFWA’s current short comings.

“I’ve been a SFWA member long enough to know that it’s a fairly thankless position, with lots of herding cats and dealing with aggravating minutiae, and I have a career to look after at the moment.”

– John Scalzi

In our opinion, Scalzi was no Moses in terms of his leadership and commitment to the SFWA. The past election results appear to indicate that his popularity was questionable. In addition, upon first review of the current platforms, it appears that a vote for Steven Gould is a vote for John Scalzi.

“I know it’s been really quiet on this page. No, I haven’t given up! I’m currently working on a historical documentary with a wonderful producer. Once we finish the current project, I’ll be right back on it.”

– Rachael Saltzman (Facebook, January 15, 2013)

“Researching grant writing.”

– Rachael Saltzman (Facebook, December 16, 2011)

“Still getting personal funds together for gear in order to do the documentary of the making of this book.”

– Rachael Saltzman (Facebook, August 25, 2011)

“Rachael: Hey gang. I know it’s been quiet here. Looking for money is slow going, and I don’t have anything new to report. Not giving up, just running a marathon.”

– Rachael Saltzman (Facebook, November 8, 2011)

On May 16, 2011 the request for public funding of Atlanta Nights resulted in an epic failure with a shortfall of $18, 702. Shortly thereafter, Filmmaker Rachael Saltzman declared that they were no longer seeking donations and that they were “…trying to go through more traditional channels and we’ll see what happens there.”

Well, it appears that there are no takers for this project in the “traditional channels” circle. Now Rachel Saltzman is going to use “personal funds” to bring this project to life?

As we stated back in June, seriously??? Does it seem like waiting to “see what happens” is a statement of confidence? Ok, we’re “traditional” investors. The number one question is: What’s the projected return on investment (ROI)? It is going to produce a profit . . . right?

Rachael, no one cares! This is an epic failure. Have you figured that out yet? Have you not even noticed that James D. Macdonald, Victoria Strauss and Ann “A.C.” Crispin failed to financially support this self-serving endeavor? It’s nothing more than a pitiable literary masturbation get-together. Yet, they overwhelmingly take credit for it. How much longer will you suckle the breasts of these self-serving “watchdogs”? You are being used. It’s time to start thinking about saving your career and investing your talents elsewhere.

Atlanta Nights (the book) has a current Amazon Sales Ranking of 1, 126,075. In other words, that equates to less than 3 copies sold every 500 days.

“SFWA members: this year it’s IMPORTANT to vote in the upcoming officer elections. Theodore Beale, a.k.a. Vox Day, is running for SFWA President. If you know the name, you’ll know why that’s scary. If you don’t, read the post below… My cat would be the better choice. And my cat is dead.” [Emphasis added]

Victoria Strauss on Facebook 2/1/13

Normally, the members of the SWFA and Writer Beware™ cast their aspersions on publishers, literary agents or their critics. In the wake of SFWA President, John “No Balls” Scalzi’s announcement that his current term, which ends on June 30, will be his last, they are attacking their own members this time . . . and it’s getting very ugly.

In the mist of the controversy is SFWA member, and author, Theodore Beale. Beale recently announced his candidacy for the post being vacated by John “No Balls” Scalzi. One thing that has become very clear, especially from those that have the most to lose (e.g. Victoria Strauss etc.) he’s (Beale) a serious threat to the “cultish” status quo of the SFWA.

“ . . . . [H]aving been a member on and off (currently on) for well over a decade, I’ve gradually come to the conclusion that the downside of it far outweighs the positives. SFWA has become a cult, dedicated first and foremost to the preservation of the cult. It has increasingly little to do with creativity, commerce, or the actual business of science fiction.”

Scalzi, in his departure discourses, has stated the following: 1) that he’s “delighted and honored to [have served his] fellow science fiction and fantasy writers; 2) that he “had a hell of a lot of fun” and 3) that he “published three novels during [his] tenure” as President of the SFWA. These are pretty lame statements to be making while exiting an organization. Exactly how did Scalzi serve the members? Sure, on an author’s salary, getting free meal tickets (at the expense of dues-paying members) can in fact be “a hell of a lot of fun.” In addition, the audacity of Scalzi to even mention the publication of three new books when, in fact, there were overdue compliance issues and tax filings that required more attention for the SFWA. So, either it takes very little effort to actually write a Scalzi book or Scalzi’s presidency was more akin to the half-hypnotized, “do-nothing” Peter Gibbons in the movie Office Space. Scalzi’s blog, entitled Whatever, clearly seems to support the notion of his lackluster performance as President and how he approached the day-to-day business of the SFWA. Moreover, it appears that Scalzi is more likely a man of words . . . not a man of action. Author Jim Hines hinted that this post has its challenges . . . it may be that Scalzi is simply burned-out. (Note: He recently took a cruise [i.e. “I need a vacation.”] with his wife and committed not to be on the Internet for 10+ days . . . sound like a burn-out?) Beale also has been critical of Scalzi’s authorship and of the SFWA:

“I do not wish to have what passes for John Scalzi’s stature in the science fiction field. If I had any desire to write unoriginal and derivative takes on Heinlein, Dick, Piper, and Star Trek, I would do so.”

– Theodore Beale

Most outgoing officers of organizations will tout their personal accomplishments and successes. “No Balls” Scalzi’s discourse appears to be devoid of delineating any accomplishments. Moreover, it appears that his term in office was nothing more than a self-serving, self-indulgent and self-promotion opportunity. Seriously, what did “No Balls” Scalzi accomplish? His dialog almost seems analogous to SFWA member Robin Wayne Bailey, who stated: “I do it for power and popularity. It’s all about the power. And the popularity.[sic] Really. It used to be about fame, fortune and free sex.” Yes, this is the face of your current SFWA.

If “No Balls” Scalzi accomplished anything at all it was bringing the SFWA into compliance by finally assuring that the Annual Reports and Federal tax returns were completed. The organization, which does have one full-time employee (paid), was non-compliant in this regard for years.

2012 appears to have been a busy year for compliance filings for the SFWA. The Secretary of the Commonwealth, Corporations Division of Massachusetts received six years (Yes, six years.) of Annual Reports from the SFWA’s Treasurer’s (there’s been several elected and none of them appear to have been capable to fulfill the duties that they were elected to execute; e.g. filing a posted-dated “Annual Report” for 2001 in 2012? 11 years late?) Really, what does “annual” mean? If Scalzi and the one full-time employee can’t get the job done . . . who can?

Filed on November 1, 2012 were the “Annual Reports” for 2001, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011 and 2012 on behalf of the SFWA . In addition, our research has also confirmed that the SFWA had not filed federal tax returns (Form 990) for 2009, 2010 or 2011. We recently posted the updated Tax Returns which were “filed” during 2012. Note the date stamps of the IRS; not the date in the signature line. SeeScience Fiction Writers of America – Tax Returns.

Who should be held accountable for the lack of timely reporting? Its President, John Scalzi. Scalzi, in our opinion, appears to be more interested in self-promotion, selling his books (which he’s doing a great job of) and pompously celebrating his status as president of the SFWA; while doing absolutely nothing . . . NOTHING . . . to enforce the fiduciary responsibilities of the SFWA’s officers as well as his own duties. Scalzi, who has historically been elected on marginal votes, completely ignored his fiduciary responsibilities to the SFWA and its membership.

Let’s revisit some of the voting results which led to putting Scalzi in the position of President of the SFWA. The SFWA claims to have a membership of 1800. During the 2010 elections, only 305 ballots were received (16%). 44 ballots were discarded due to SFWA procedural requirements; leaving 261 qualified ballots (14%). President, John Scalzi received merely 208 votes. Therefore, approximately 11% of the entire membership voted Scalzi into office. Treasurer Amy Casil Sterling was elected with 151 votes (8% of the entire membership). Comparatively, national voter turnout in federal elections has been as high as 56.8% in recent years. What was the cause of this dismal voting behavior? Was it due to disenchantment or indifference?

This is the perfect time for a shake up within the SFWA and Writer Beware™.

Victoria Strauss’s Reactions to Theodore Beale’s Candidacy

“If he did win, he’d be like the dog that caught the car–Holy shit. This wasn’t supposed to happen. What do I do now?

– Victoria Strauss

Pointing her Facebook friends to a blog posting by the always over-reactive Jim Hines, Victoria Strauss has now has launched her own hate and a “Get Out the Vote” Campaign against Theodore Beale. Strauss stated: “My cat would be the better choice. And my cat is dead.” Speaking of “dead cats,” let’s not forget that it was Strauss and Ann “A.C.” Crispin, the “watchdogs” of the SFWA sponsored Writer Beware™, that failed to report the Charles E. Petit scandal visited on the John Steinbeck Estate. Petit was one of their own, as is Beale, and was at one time the attorney for the SFWA . . . prior to being disbarred. The mere fact that Strauss has come out swinging against Beale (and not Petit) appears to indicate that Beale’s candidacy is something more than an idle concern to her . . . it’s more likely a threat to her position with Writer Beware™. It’s interesting to watch Strauss & Company treat their own members as vermin and with the same disrespect for the “trolls” on the Absolute Water Cooler forum. (Also See: American Book Publishing “Investigation” Research Released: No Proof of Victoria Strauss’ Claims.)

Strauss, who rarely makes public appearances, unless they are online, has never indicated what her day job or true occupation actually is. Judging by the copious daily Internet postings it’s likely that she doesn’t have one. Her income has to come from other sources or a sugar daddy; it’s certainly not from book sales (based on her sales rankings). (Note: Interestingly Strauss’ Amazon Rankings are pale compared to Beale’s.) There has to be a hidden agenda to Strauss’ heightened concerns. Would a Beale Presidency threaten the continued existence of Writer Beware™? We could only hope so.

Both Strauss and Ann “A.C.” Crispin have served more than their fair share of time as the administrators of Writer Beware™. Moreover, Crispin is in the middle of a very aggressive battle with cancer and her continued contribution to the site is highly questionable. Therefore, one can reasonably assume that a possible vacancy at Writer Beware™ may be on the horizon.

Regardless of whoever eventually wins the election as President, it is readily apparent that change within the SFWA and Writer Beware™ is both timely and necessary. Considering Strauss’ strong emphasis on how “IMPORTANT” this election is, it’s a very clear indication that her post may be in jeopardy. However, change would bring about more responsible reporting of literary scams and move Writer Beware™ back into a credible and worthwhile resource for the publishing industry; something that it has lacked for a long time.

Considering that both Strauss and Crispin have utilized Writer Beware™ for self-promotion purposes. It’s time for new blood and it’s time for Strauss and Crispin to have the ovaries to step down. John “No-Balls “Scalzi’s words are most appropriate and should be heeded:

“I also believe that SFWA as an organization is not well-served by its leadership role remaining static for too long. It’s time to let someone else take the wheel.” [Emphasis added]

– John Scalzi

Public criticism of the internal processes and workings of the SFWA (and Writer Beware™) are vital to this election process. It is rare for those within the SFWA to be so openly critical. Nevertheless, it should prove to be quite entertaining to monitor. Considering that Scalzi was voted in on only 11% of the members votes, hopefully this will result in a higher voter turnout. Moreover, we pray that the process puts dedicated and responsible officers in place for the organization.

We expect this heated debate to continue and anticipate that others will join the race for President of the SFWA. Whether he wins or not, Theodore Beale may be the right candidate to bring about the necessary change. We fail to find this opportunity “scary.” Whatever.

On February 7, 2007, Victor E. Cretella, III sent a letter to Christine Norris in the interest of one of his clients, PublishAmerica LLP, declaring that Norris had produced some defamatory remarks regarding his client, and requesting that she quit doing so. At first, Norris declined to agree, yet on February 15, after she acknowledged a second letter, she responded by posting a remark on the Absolute Write Water Cooler (AWWC), an Internet discussion site for yearning writers, stating that Cretella was constraining her to quit posting dissenting comments about PublishAmerica.

The AWWC group responded rapidly and furiously to Cretella’s movement in the interest of PublishAmerica. Consistent with court filings, on February 16, David L. Kuzminski posted a remark stating that “it’s time to report Vic Cretella to the Maryland Bar Association for attempted extortion” and that Cretella’s law firm, Gordon and Simmons, “might not want the black[]eye [that] he’s giving them.” Kuzminski likewise posted a duplicate of a message that he supposedly sent to Gordon and Simmons, and additionally some parts of the Maryland State Bar Association, stating that “Cretella seems to be involved in what I would characterize as extortion” and that Cretella is “actively . . . furthering [PublishAmerica’s] unethical[,] if not illegal[,] methods.” Kuzminski added that he “fully intend[ed] to report [Cretella] to the Maryland State Bar Association.” Kuzminski’s remarks were cited in some ensuing posts on AWWC, the greater part of which extolled his response.

On February 13, 2008, Cretella sued Kuzminski for defamation in federal court in Virginia, asserting that Kuzminski’s charges were false and defamatory. Kuzminski responded with a motion to dismiss, stating that his articulations were just supposition or simply opinion.

The court dismissed two of the seven counts in the complaint, on the basis that the proclamations weren’t actionable. In any case, the court denied the motion as to the other five counts, holding that Kuzminki’s other asserted statements – the accusations of extortion and unethical conduct, embarrassment by Cretella’s former law firm, that Cretella took action against another author – all were proclamations that might be indicated to be false. The court held that “many courts have regarded accusations of unlawful activity as statements of fact.”

The matter went to the jury. On 2/4/2009, the jury returned a verdict for Cretella in the amount of $236,000.